On 02/26/2015 07:06 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > I think you've nailed where the disconnect is between the two sides of this > issue: what exactly do we see OpenStack being? You brought up several Linux > vendors who ship on a longish cycle, and who provide LTS for their releases. > But Linux itself is on no such cycle, nor does it provide long term anything. >
But Linux is one monolith project. > OpenStack can't be all things to all people. Following the Linux analogy, we > need a few companies who want to become OpenStack distributors, packagers, > and supporters, in the manner of RedHat, Canonical, etc., are for Linux. As a > development project, we need to be able to move fluidly, and the release > cycle deadlines and freezes get in the way of that. As a packager and > distributor, the release cycle scheduler *helps* immeasurably. We can't be > both. I am fairly new to OpenStack, but from what I've ascertained so far, there are, now, individual sub-releases of individual projects. That could be a difficult task for any Linux vendor, to distribute. There's one project, Calibre - EBook Management Software, that does weekly releases. But again, it is easy for them, because they are a single controlled project. For something big as OpenStack, IMO, close co-ordination is needed. -- Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC me in replies for quicker response __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
